From moat perspective

Contract

Field	Bound contract
Trigger	User wants an answer only from the moat seat (building, keeping, thickening defensibility).
Authority	Read-only. No file, VCS, credential, paid, published, deployed, or remote mutation.
Side effect	A moat-perspective analysis emitted to chat; no artifact is written.
Done	A moat-perspective answer is emitted without blending other lenses.

Not for

• Rebuilding a design from primitives: use from-first-principle.
• Blended multi-seat analysis: run each from-*-perspective seat independently and compare after.
• Source or remote mutation: this skill is read-only.

Inputs

• The subject or question to analyze (required). Restate it in one line before answering so the seat is unambiguous.
• Any comparison context the user supplies (optional). Absent context means analyze the subject alone from this seat.

Procedure

1. Restate the subject in one line so the moat seat is unambiguous. Done when: the subject is restated.
2. Answer only from the moat seat: what builds, keeps, or thickens defensibility, switching costs, network effects, scale, data, brand, IP, lock-in, compounding advantage, and erosion risks to each. Done when: every claim ties to a defensibility mechanism or its absence.
3. Do not blend mid-answer. Exclude money-and-timing, codebase-tolerance, impact, career, breaking, rent-seeking, innovation, stability, human-trust, and skeptic reasoning from the body. If another seat is relevant, name it once as a pointer at the end; never fold its logic into the answer. Done when: no other seat's reasoning appears in the body.
4. Keep the output self-contained from this seat: every claim ties to a defensibility mechanism or its absence. Where evidence is thin, state the gap rather than inventing a moat. Done when: thin-evidence gaps are stated, not filled.
5. Stop when the moat-perspective answer is complete. Comparison or synthesis across lenses happens outside this skill, after independent outputs exist. Done when: the answer is complete and no cross-lens synthesis is included.

Failure and recovery

• Blending failure: the answer folds in another lens's logic. Recovery: restate the step-3 boundary and rewrite the affected passage from the moat seat only.
• Missing subject: no analyzable subject was supplied. Stop and ask for the subject; do not fabricate one or widen to a general essay.
• Thin evidence: a claimed moat has no supporting mechanism. State the gap explicitly; never assert defensibility the subject does not support.
• No partial artifact is written; the only output is the chat answer, so a failed pass leaves nothing to roll back.

Output

A moat-perspective analysis in chat: the defensibility mechanisms at work, where they are absent or eroding, and the moat-seat verdict on the subject, ending with an optional one-line pointer to other seats worth consulting, without blending them.